First, wars are not won on kill-loss ratios, they are won on achieving objectives. United States had lost the Vietnam War and in Afghanistan despite this K/D advantage.
And in neither of these wars was the US defeated
militarily. The US people decided they were sick of the war, and pulled out. Every time that there was an actual battle fought, the military was crushingly effective.
I'm not trying to argue the US lost the cultural and political will to fight. It did, and that's why it lost those wars. It was not, however,
militarily defeated.
Second, you are wrong. While I cannot claim to know data for all of these wars, German troops in World War II consistently achieved 50% greater kill/loss ratio than their Allied counterparts, including the US forces. United States also benefited from British experience, and despite that their first engagement in the war was a disaster (6 000 casualties suffered to 1 000 inflicted). They learned quickly, though, and had several good generals (e.g. Patton, Bradley) even though none were as good as German counterparts in battlefield performance. But US had mobilized later and entered war later than anyone else, so by the time that British, Germans and Soviets were starting to draw upon their last manpower and economic reserves in 1944./1945., United States were just about hitting their peak. And again, despite that, they did not achieve favorable K/D ratio.
Most of the Wehrmacht's military kills by numbers, was butchering Soviet conscripts. Given how horrifically incompetently Red Army was run for most of the war, this speaks as much to Russian incompetence as it does to German competence. Which isn't to say the Germans weren't terrifingly competent soldiers; IIRC, they did have the best proportion of losses inflicted to received throughout the war, and their early war record in particular was incredible.
I'm not going to try to claim that the US inflicted disproportionate losses in every engagement; D-Day or Pearl Harbor alone would put the lie to that.
Looking in more detail, it does look like things were a lot closer-run against the Germans than I remembered, closer to parity on the whole, and sometimes leaning in favor of the Germans. My bad mis-remembering on that part.
Against the Japanese though, was a different story.
In the Pacific, US mostly fought a naval war, and whipped the Japanese due to being able to (eventually) establish a massive material advantage. But majority of the Japanese manpower was tied down fighting the Chinese and, to a lesser extent, the British. British themselves held onto the Indian Ocean despite being massively outnumbered and outgunned by the Japanese force which had invaded the area, which is frankly more impressive than anything US had achieved.
The US Navy also very rapidly became more
competent than the IJN, both in tactical doctrine and in 'how to operate a ship' in general. It's notable that several of the key victories, Midway being the most well-known, came
before the US's superior industrial base had granted it hardware supremacy.
Claiming it's 'just' due to industrial/numerical superiority is flat-out wrong. Just at Midway, where the forces were somewhat at parity, the US nonetheless
crushed the IJN, sinking four fleet carriers in exchange for a single Fleet Carrier. That's a defeat the Japanese
never managed to recover from.
As for the rest:
In World War I, you had American professionals against German conscripts. In such a situation, any country would have performed well. In fact, British regulars in 1914. performed better against German conscripts than US regulars did in 1918. But even in 1918., brunt of the fighting was borne by the British and French armies; US troops did not participate in significant numbers until the Marne counterattack, and even by that time were - on a unit-by-unit basis - inferior to their British and French counterparts. However, US troops and units were fresh, while Germans (like British and the French) were drawing on their last reserves, and this combined with US industry provided a decisive advantage. Even so, I have seen no evidence that US troops overall achieved favorable exchange ratio.
Given how many other subjects we're covering, I'm honestly not interested in arguing WWI on top of the rest.
In Korean War, you had UN force, of which US had provided about 50% of combat troops and most of the air force. And this UN force got whipped by the Chinese army that had next to no artillery and no air force worth mention. They eventually adapted and stabilized the frontline to where border is today (mostly thanks to the Chinese overextending and outrunning their logistics), but situation was so bad at one point that MacArthur wanted to use nukes.
No, this force did not get 'whipped.' It was forced into a rapid retreat, yes, but that's because the Chinese were using suicidally reckless human wave tactics. These were initially effective, but the further from their own borders they advanced, and the more time NATO & SK forces had to adapt, the less effective they became.
You're also ignoring the fact that the Chinese made serious effort to 'liberate'
all of Korea, and while they made impressive progress for a while, they ultimately failed and were forced back across the 38th parallel. The Chinese dialed back their war goals when they realized that their initial successes would not be endlessly repeated.
In the end, China
alone and
by their own numbers lost more soldiers than the SK forces and the US forces
combined. The North Koreans lost at
least that much again, possibly twice that many.
They did not 'win' the war. They were forced into a stalemate that they saved face by claiming was all they had ever wanted.
Vietnam war is a case study of why K/D ratios do not really matter in a war. But seriously, considering the difference in equipment and resources, not achieving favorable K/D ratio would have been weird.
Iraqi wars I already addressed.
Chinese Communists had won the Korean War against more-or-less entirety of the UN. Sure, the war militarily ended in a stalemate. But the cassus belli for the Chinese intervention was preservation of the North Korean regime, and they succeeded in that objective rather spectacularly. They also won the proxy war in Vietnam as well, though that doesn't really count by the virtue of being, well, proxy war.
And considering all the progressive BS going on in the US military at this moment, are you really sure you want to point fingers at the Chinese for political indoctrination of their troops?
First off, no the Chinese did not win the Korean War.
Second off, the US has
started having political indoctrination issues. It's been standard practice for the CCP for basically its entire existence.
Yeah, except French performance in literally everything so far disagrees with that. They performed better in Mali than US did in their own colonial adventures, and on a shoestring budget at that. And they also regularly outperformed US in exercises.
Citation needed.
Citation for refutation,
perspective of a French soldier serving in Afghanistan alongside US forces.
That much is true, but basically what you are saying is that the US relies on being a 500 pound gorilla in the room full of toddlers. Does not exactly inspire confidence in the US ability to handle either a peer conflict or a shoestring operation.
Yeah, and Israel had the advantage of fighting Arabs. But have them invade Switzerland, and I would not bet on Israel.
And if you had forgone that last word, I would have been able to say that you had written something correct. Because there are quite a few militaries that, in defensive operations at least, should be able to outperform the US. But we'll never know, because nobody is stupid enough to attack them.
Please name these militaries, and why you'd expect them to outperform the US while fighting defensively.
